MovieChat Forums > The Full Monty (1997) Discussion > I just couldn't sympathize with Garry

I just couldn't sympathize with Garry


I hated him. He steals, he's lazy, he turned down two jobs when he was desperate for money, he has money for smokes but not for heating, he's sleazy, he's a bad role model for his son and repeatedly loses his temper in front of him, when his friends try to get jobs and leave the dead end lifestyle they're living he just drags them back, his idea to fix financial troubles is a whacky get rich quick scheme. Basically the character to me was just a very horrible selfish little sod.

And before too many people have a go at me, please understand that I liked the movie and I'm not criticizing it, I'm only criticizing the character.

reply

I think they implied at some point that he did a stint in prison. Someone with a criminal background is pretty much screwed when it comes to finding a decent job, let alone a job at all. That's why he uses morally questionable tactics to make ends meet.

reply

Yes but his wife offered him a job where she worked and he turned her down cold

reply

That's called pride. Maybe beggars shouldn't be able to afford pride, but that's what it was about, IMO.

reply

He had one foot in loser territory, but he was redeemed by his love of his son.


~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.

reply

I don't want to sympathize with him, I want to watch him having fun! It's a fun movie! Of course his character isn't being responsible, but that would make for a really boring movie! "Watch out of work man clean up his act, get a job, reunite with son."
He's fun. His wacky get rich scheme is fun. Without him there is no movie! It's not real life after all.

reply

This is a very well done movie about some characters that were not perfect people. Gaz was not a responsible dad and he stole, etc. as you said, but what stood out, at least for me, besides the comedy aspect, was the love of his son and their relationship, not his flaws.

reply

In real life, people aren't perfect. A lot of fathers run out on their sons, a lot of people grow into adulthood without ever having met their father because he did a runner. So in that respect, there was a positive side to his character, even if he wasn't a saint.

In TV and film, you tend to forgive fictional characters of quite a lot, if they seem to legitimately care about the people around them.

reply

Well, this character is nothing less than the exact copy of some real people in real life! The writer was a hell of an observer when he wrote the script!

In real life, I'm not that fond of this kind of people either, but in the film, 'Gary' does have something to him that makes him an engaging and attractive guy and despite his very bad habits, he loves his son and is ready to go as far as to play a stripper for one night, in order to just get enough money to keep meeting Nathan whenever he wants too.

The scene where Gary can't go to the swimming pool with his son because the kid's mother and stepfather don't want him to is heart-wrenching.

It comes from the actor himself, too. Robert Carlyle did a wonderful job on this character.

reply

I think he turned the job down due to the pay. £2.50 p/h isn't enough to wipe your ass with

The symbol that you sent me isn't a pentagram.' Sinister

reply

[deleted]

Film is almost 20 years old, £2.50 was much better pay then than it is now

reply

Gerry is not likeable, except for caring for his son. About the job, it's called "pride". Not a good thing to have when you are close to being a bum, but this guy refused to take help from his wife.

... Viva Clark Gable, el eterno y único Rey de Hollywood

reply

i'm not british, so i don't know how dole works there.. but is it possible he would lose benefits and end up worse off by taking a 2.50/hr job than by remaining on the dole?

have you tried that crazy wrap thing?! http://erinleighmckenzie.myitworks.com

reply

Hello, back in those days no probably not, however the benefits system is a lot stricter nowadays and people can be refused payments for turning down paid work. Also not sure what the payments were back in the 1990s for benefit so I'd guess he'd probably be weller off taking the work

The Ignore Button. Kills trolls dead. ;)

reply

thanks for the info :) i live in Canada, so my knowledge is limited to our social assistance program. here, when someone is on welfare and unemployed, they get full benefits (as in money plus coverage for things like dental, prescriptions, eyeglasses, etc). if they begin working, they are able to earn a small amount - but anything over that amount, welfare deducts from their welfare cheque, and depending on how much is being earned, the extra benefits can be taken away as well. so in Canada, Gaz being offered a job at 2.50/hr might actually put him in a worse-off position than just being completely unemployed.

i know that's not why Gaz said no, though. he said it because a job 'at 2.50 an hour in the black hole of Calcutta' is beneath him, as far as he's concerned.

reply

Hiya youre welcome, glad to help. Here is much the same work wise but again they reduce the welfare amount depending onb what hours you do. Free healthcare only comes with income-related jobseekers allowance now, and not contributions based, which goes on the amount of tax youve paid in the past. Average wage here tehse is about £5.90 an hour, so a job paying two fifty wouldnt be any use at all lol. Yeah I agree, and I dont think he'd have wanted to accept a job working with his ex wife, who seemed a bit of a cow. Could see her point, but she didnt seem to grasp that he did love his son and wanted to spend time with him

The Ignore Button. Kills trolls dead. ;)

reply